Climate Change Banter

[skierinvermont]

Much prefer taco's rating.  To me, words like alarmist, skeptic, denier (in AGW context) are part of the vernacular and relate mainly to opinions being held.  Words like arrogant, confused, misled, stupid seem far more heavily loaded and pejorative.  Also, I think there's an unintentional oversight in that the above ratings apply those extra-loaded words only to #4 and below, and that skier would agree that the extreme alarmist camp includes folks to whom some/all of those words might apply.

 

 

That's because skier has shown a higher intolerance for the #4/#5/#6 ratings versus #1/#2...personal preference. We all have them.

 

But I agree, it makes the list more subjective rather than simply stating what each group focuses on....not painting a broadbrush of some anecdotel attitude perception on the entire group would come across more objective.

 

 

To be fair, your placement of "stupid" could be argued for #1....if you wanted to be unbiased.

 

Yes stupid could definitely be placed on #1, and possibly #2 although #2 as I described it is a little closer to the scientific opinion than #4 is. 

 

I do not think the terms alarmist, skeptic, or denier are any less subjective, loaded and/or pejorative than the terms arrogant, stupid, biased, or misled. Alarmist and denier are clearly pejorative. Skeptic is intended to stake out a claim of scientific superiority which does not exist. Instead of using these conventional loaded and pejorative terms, I made the pejorative and loaded nature of these terms more obvious and less subtle. If you can think of a term to describe alarmists and deniers which has no value judgment inherent in it, I would consider that term. But I do not wish to use labels which give false validity to opinions which are irrational. The value judgment within the label and description should either be nonexist (I don't know if this is possible) or direct, obvious and clearly stated (rather than subtle).

 

Also Will, I don't think my intolerance of #1 is any less than it is for #5 or #6. I've spent plenty of time arguing with group #1 on this forum (Terry, Vergent usually, sometimes Phillip or Friv). And my tolerance of group #2 is similar to group #4, although as I said above I think the way I described it group #2 is closer to the scientific opinion than #4 is. #2 is a group that follows the science but just has a consistent bias towards the worst case scenario. #4 not only has a bias towards the best case scenario but also steps outside of the range of scientific uncertainty at times.  

[f2tornado]

Indeed it is, which is why you can see the smaller confidence intervals during that period than pre-2003. However, you can see that there is more than enough confidence to be certain OHC was rapidly rising during the 80s and 90s. 

 

The ocean has been warming for a 135 years. This is not a new phenomenon.

 

 

 

Gouretski, V., J. Kennedy, T. Boyer, and A. Köhl (2012), Consistent near-surface ocean

warming since 1900 in two largely independent observing networks, Geophysical Research

Letters, 39, L19606, doi: 10.1029/2012GL052975.

 

 

Roemmich, D., W. J. Gould, and J. Gilson, (2012), 135 years of global ocean warming between

the Challenger expedition and the Argo Programme, Nature Climate Change, 2, 425-428, doi:

10.1038/nclimate1461.

[skierinvermont]

Not tweaked by you... Its not raw data, I'm sure. Raw data is almost 99% of the time cooler than adjusted.

 

Nonsense, as I've demonstrated to you several times. There is much data that has been adjusted both up and down. Deniers just focus on the data that has been adjusted upwards. 

 

Also if reality is an "up trend" but you have an inaccurate method of measuring it, more often than not the method will yield a result which shows a lower trend than reality. Improvements in accuracy will result in upwards revisions. 

 

Which is essentially what happened with the ARGO floats. We had inaccurate measurements yielding wacky inaccurate results that were averaging out to not much trend. When the measurements were fixed, or the inaccurate floats removed from the analysis, the actual warming trend that was occurring in reality became prevalent in the data. 

[The_Global_Warmer]

The last three years including this year have seen the start of the year start out with a Major NINA in 2011.  A  regular NINA in 2012.  And ENSO Negative Neautral with the start of the year having -0.6, -0.6,-0.4.  We have yet to see one trimonthly even reach 0.0C yet in 2013.  In 2011 two months were at -0.2C during mid Summer.  Most of 2011 was a NINA and it still pulled off a .55C on GISS.  In 2012 The ONI index reached Neutral positive conditions in Fall for a few months before going back negative.

 

Since 2007 only 20 of 80 months have been ENSO positive.  Only 11 of those have been considered NINO months while 34 have been considered NINA months.  Our last official NINO month was April of 2010. 

 

 

the last two months the ONI has been -0.3C and -0.4C.  And with 11.5 days left to go.  CFS has spiked back up slightly above 0.3C+.  It is currently at .143C+ for the month so far.  The .143C projects to a .69(.64-.74) GISS anomaly.  Which would be even with last year. 

 

 

 

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml

 

 

 

 

 

 

We can see arctic warming on CFS last year.  This years ice being more will reduce Pacific side warming.  But overall the arctic will warm considerably from now till the end of the month.  Siberia will cool off some.  NA overall will warm.  Canada is expected to be really warm.  ENSO emerging positive.  And the AAO is in the tank.  So Antarctica is warm. 

 

For me and reaching record warmth will all depend on ENSO.  For this year record warmth is not in the cards. 

 

But if GISS averages .70C the rest of the year it will finish at .61C and be tied with 1998 and 2002 for 4th warmest year on GISS records.  To reach the .60C yearly mark and be tied with 2003 for 6th warmest on GISS the finish will have to be at an average of .665 or higher.

 

 

For 2013 to tie 2007 as the 3rd warmest year on giss the rest of the year must average .76C.

 

 

 

 

 

 

So I believe if we go into 2014 with an ENSO Positive or weak NINO then the chance to break the 2010 record will be there.  If that turned into a NINO through Summer.  I would put the odds of breaking 2010's record at extremely good. 

[skierinvermont]

Friv, we have warmed when you look at comparable ENSO states or statistically remove the ENSO signal. But not be all that much. If we used theoretical rates of AGW and ENSO is the only form of natural variability, then today's neutral years should be .25C warmer than neutral years 15 years ago. Ninos, should be .25C warmer than 15 years ago, and the same for Ninas. Usually it's not quite that big of a difference and ends up being around .15C warmer.

[Jonger]

Don't SSTs anomalies usually peak about now?

[nflwxman]

Friv, we have warmed when you look at comparable ENSO states or statistically remove the ENSO signal. But not be all that much. If we used theoretical rates of AGW and ENSO is the only form of natural variability, then today's neutral years should be .25C warmer than neutral years 15 years ago. Ninos, should be .25C warmer than 15 years ago, and the same for Ninas. Usually it's not quite that big of a difference and ends up being around .15C warmer.

Solar make up for the rest?

[The_Global_Warmer]

Well.  We have definitely seen a period where warming at the surface and Sub-Surface 0-100M global oceans slowed.  Because of natural variation it's hard to say when this period actually has been.

 

I think OHC 0-700M is our best guide on that.  While the pre argo data may look suspect to some.  In how OHC exploded upwards between 2002 and 2003.  But we had a 33 month NINA before that.  Which was 45 months in a row of either 0.0C ENSO or colder.  Then ENSO flipped to a strong NINO around the peak of a major solar max. Then solar forcing quickly started to drop from there.  OHC never went down.  It just slowed the rate it was increasing near the surface vs the late 80s through the mid 2000s.  The jump on GISS from the mid 1980s to the mid 2000s was roughly .40-.50C.  Since then we have essentially flat-lined. 

 

Global warming may be a lot more consistent that what the temp record shows in terms of forcing increase and subsequent feedback changes.  But there are clearly natural factors and probably aerosols that mitigate the continual forcing increase in terms of sub-surface and surface warming.

 

 

But we have direct evidence of the GHG forcing increase and it's feedback's through other means. 

 

 

In the end the temperatures will rise to the equilibrium with GHG's and their feedback's.  Which means.  We will probably see another period of "catch up" when those natural factors let up or even switch to enhance warming.  But even without that the GHG warming will overwhelm their ability to suppress AGW effects which should display itself as a more slow warming. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[tacoman25]

Solar make up for the rest?

 

I know it's a very weak cycle, but aren't we at solar max right now?

[Jonger]

Solar make up for the rest?

 

I know it's a very weak cycle, but aren't we at solar max right now?

Sun spots are non existent, but the peak to the valley is only 1.3W per sq meter.

[nflwxman]

Sun spots are non existent, but the peak to the valley is only 1.3W per sq meter.

Right now we are at the weakest solar Max in the last 100 years, BUT solar from 2007-2011 was almost flatlined.

[Jonger]

Right now we are at the weakest solar Max in the last 100 years, BUT solar from 2007-2011 was almost flatlined.

 

If it stayed where it is for a long time it would probably make an impact. The theory of co2 sensitivity is approx 3.2W / M2..... So 1.3 would be significant.

[Snow_Miser]

I know it's a very weak cycle, but aren't we at solar max right now?

 

The climate isn't as sensitive to small solar variations like the 11 year cycle as it is to long term solar variations, like the De Vries cycle. Longer term solar variations on a decadal to centennial scale have about a 50-70 year temperature response lag, and have more noticeable impacts on the climate. The reasoning, according to Zanchettin et al. is:

 

"Although most of the Sun-climate mechanisms are not

well understood yet, a host of empirical evidence suggests

that solar energy changes alter the Earth’s climate significantly

[Eddy, 1976; Haigh, 1996; Shindell et al., 1999; Marsh

and Svensmark, 2003; Lambert et al., 2004; Georgieva et al.,

2005] and that climate sensitivity to solar variations obeys a

frequency-dependent transfer function of solar energy, so that

the damping effect of the oceanic and atmospheric thermal

inertia make the climate more sensitive to slower solar

variations [Wigley, 1988; Foukal et al., 2004; Scafetta and

West, 2006]."

 

 

From Helama et al. 2010.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Don't SSTs anomalies usually peak about now?

Yes. It also depends a lot on the enso state.

Recently there has been a lot of ENSO warming. Confined though to near the equator. The last few days the area over the far Eastern Pacific South of the equator right off South America has quickly warmed up.

The Models show a large ridge over N. Pacific intensify over the next 7-10 days. We have already seen SSTA respond to this in today's update. We will likely see the massive area of large positive SSTA become widespread and torch like we saw during the Summer.

The N. Atlantic should cool a bit from the large blob of very warm SSTA.

The Atlantic/Arctic will torch hard as the huge ridge rolls through after that it should start to cool.

So in the short term say next 4-6 weeks we will probably stay around .30C+ or higher. We might even go above .40C+

On the flip side while NA is relatively warm. Siberia will be way below normal with big snow cover setting up.

[LakeEffectKing]

Kind of off topic from what has been posted in this banter thread, but this seems as good a place as any to ask my question.

We often hear that there are scientists out there that are supposedly on the dime of the oil companies (to protect their interests, as implied) which therefore, reduces the credibility of that scientist.

My question is this. If the oil companies are so hell bent on skewing the science by recruiting (paying big bucks) scientists, do we have evidence that Hansen, Jones, Mann (ie the big guns of AGW hypothesis)have EVER been offered money to "join the big oil team"?? IOW, wouldn't those big names have ever mentioned that they'd been approached?? Wouldn't those fine folks have been the most targeted by Big Oil to "flip"??

Just a thought exercise.

[PhillipS]

Kind of off topic from what has been posted in this banter thread, but this seems as good a place as any to ask my question.

We often hear that there are scientists out there that are supposedly on the dime of the oil companies (to protect their interests, as implied) which therefore, reduces the credibility of that scientist.

My question is this. If the oil companies are so hell bent on skewing the science by recruiting (paying big bucks) scientists, do we have evidence that Hansen, Jones, Mann (ie the big guns of AGW hypothesis)have EVER been offered money to "join the big oil team"?? IOW, wouldn't those big names have ever mentioned that they'd been approached?? Wouldn't those fine folks have been the most targeted by Big Oil to "flip"??

Just a thought exercise.

 

It's a legitimate question, and one I've wondered about.  I've never heard of an overt offer by fossil fuel companies to any of the big name climatologists - but my guess would be that it would come in the form of an offer of funding for their research.  A bald offer of money would be too likely to blow up in their faces but an offer of funding could be portrayed as an olive branch to the opposition.  "Let's all work together" - that sort of thing.

[FPizz]

Do "green" companies pay agw scientists $ as well?

[LakeEffectKing]

It's a legitimate question, and one I've wondered about.  I've never heard of an overt offer by fossil fuel companies to any of the big name climatologists - but my guess would be that it would come in the form of an offer of funding for their research.  A bald offer of money would be too likely to blow up in their faces but an offer of funding could be portrayed as an olive branch to the opposition.  "Let's all work together" - that sort of thing.

Good points.

[skierinvermont]

Solar make up for the rest?

 

Solar made up a lot of the difference for the 2007-2010 period, but we're currently in a solar max one (although a a very weak one). I've done some work on statistically adjusting for the various known sources of natural variability in this thread here:

 

http://www.americanwx.com/bb/index.php/topic/38887-adjusting-global-temperature-for-oni-tsi-and-pinatubo/

 

The statistical adjustments can do a reasonable job (not perfect) of removing ENSO, solar, and Pinatubo effects. When this procedure is performed we see that the last 15 years have had a pretty normal rate of warming. There's been a bit of a slowdown since 2005. This could be due to the imperfections of the statistical procedure, or it could be due to other sources of natural variability, or it could be due ECS lying on the lower side of the 1.5-4.5C confidence interval. 

 

Here is the relevant chart I produced:

 

 

[skierinvermont]

Sun spots are non existent, but the peak to the valley is only 1.3W per sq meter.

 

1.3W/m2 would be a lot. The actual change in forcing from peak to valley is much less than that because not all of the earth is facing directly at the sun all the time (only the equator does at noon). Half the earth faces away at any given time, and the rest except the equator at noon of the earth faces the sun at various angles. So the actual forcing when the sun changes brightness by about 1W/m2 ends up being about .2W/m2. 

[skierinvermont]

Kind of off topic from what has been posted in this banter thread, but this seems as good a place as any to ask my question.

We often hear that there are scientists out there that are supposedly on the dime of the oil companies (to protect their interests, as implied) which therefore, reduces the credibility of that scientist.

My question is this. If the oil companies are so hell bent on skewing the science by recruiting (paying big bucks) scientists, do we have evidence that Hansen, Jones, Mann (ie the big guns of AGW hypothesis)have EVER been offered money to "join the big oil team"?? IOW, wouldn't those big names have ever mentioned that they'd been approached?? Wouldn't those fine folks have been the most targeted by Big Oil to "flip"??

Just a thought exercise.

 

There aren't that many scientists being funded by oil companies. But that various scientists have accepted big oil money and then gone on to produce unscientific results is a fact. There are several names out there that have done it specifically.

 

More often than not though, the fossil fuel industry doesn't try to interfere directly in science. They just fund denier websites and lobbying groups that talk about how great fossil fuels are and make up nonsense about AGW.

 

 

I don't suppose your thought experiment was intended to suggest that there has not been denier 'science' done by people taking money from oil was it? Because I can give you names of where it's happened if you need...

[f2tornado]

A conservative think tank put together the climate change money trail in 2004. http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/289.pdf

The epilogue before the numbers notes various concerns about the potential implications of the money trail.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Kind of off topic from what has been posted in this banter thread, but this seems as good a place as any to ask my question.

We often hear that there are scientists out there that are supposedly on the dime of the oil companies (to protect their interests, as implied) which therefore, reduces the credibility of that scientist.

My question is this. If the oil companies are so hell bent on skewing the science by recruiting (paying big bucks) scientists, do we have evidence that Hansen, Jones, Mann (ie the big guns of AGW hypothesis)have EVER been offered money to "join the big oil team"?? IOW, wouldn't those big names have ever mentioned that they'd been approached?? Wouldn't those fine folks have been the most targeted by Big Oil to "flip"??

Just a thought exercise.

 

 

This would be like asking you're best friends wife if she wants to have an affair with you.

 

 

Maybe you fall for her and can't help it.  Its being human.  Maybe you think she feels the same.  And then you take that plunge and she doesn't and goes to him.  bad news.

 

 

if an important company goes to a James Hanson who gets arrested for his convictions.  Decides to air that proposal pubically.  He is associated with NASA.  And regardless of what the Watts like denier communities think most of the public has no idea who he is.  But if that story broke he would be seen in a positive light to the public and the potential backfire for the oil company's agenda could be massive in the court of public opinion.

 

Because regardless of public opinion on AGW the act of deceitful manipulation would be the issue which would trigger millions to view Hansen but more so than him NASA which is viewed as positive as the legit player in that scam.

 

It would inadvertently push millions on the fence or who didn't care before towards NASA/Hansen position.

 

Mann is irrelevant.  It would have to be like the head of NOAA or the department of commerce or James Hansen. Or maybe some major military person because the military is clearly in the AGW camp. 

 

Which speaks volumes about AGW.  The military is a single entity who's best interest is their viability in protecting the United States of America from outside threats.  They clearly view AGW as a threat.  You definitely don't want to get on their bad side they have major influence.  And since AGW itself it not political, they would be free to to rampage through the media about being bought to downplay AGW vs their internal views.

[HailMan06]

1.3W/m2 would be a lot. The actual change in forcing from peak to valley is much less than that because not all of the earth is facing directly at the sun all the time (only the equator does at noon). Half the earth faces away at any given time, and the rest except the equator at noon of the earth faces the sun at various angles. So the actual forcing when the sun changes brightness by about 1W/m2 ends up being about .2W/m2.

You would also have to factor in Earth's albedo so the figure would be around .15W/m2.

[Jonger]

This would be like asking you're best friends wife if she wants to have an affair with you.

 

 

Maybe you fall for her and can't help it.  Its being human.  Maybe you think she feels the same.  And then you take that plunge and she doesn't and goes to him.  bad news.

 

 

if an important company goes to a James Hanson who gets arrested for his convictions.  Decides to air that proposal pubically.  He is associated with NASA.  And regardless of what the Watts like denier communities think most of the public has no idea who he is.  But if that story broke he would be seen in a positive light to the public and the potential backfire for the oil company's agenda could be massive in the court of public opinion.

 

Because regardless of public opinion on AGW the act of deceitful manipulation would be the issue which would trigger millions to view Hansen but more so than him NASA which is viewed as positive as the legit player in that scam.

 

It would inadvertently push millions on the fence or who didn't care before towards NASA/Hansen position.

 

Mann is irrelevant.  It would have to be like the head of NOAA or the department of commerce or James Hansen. Or maybe some major military person because the military is clearly in the AGW camp. 

 

Which speaks volumes about AGW.  The military is a single entity who's best interest is their viability in protecting the United States of America from outside threats.  They clearly view AGW as a threat.  You definitely don't want to get on their bad side they have major influence.  And since AGW itself it not political, they would be free to to rampage through the media about being bought to downplay AGW vs their internal views.

 

In 2013 ALL government departments are fighting for survival, including NASA and NOAA. It would make ZERO sense for them to do anything to risk their existence, so don't act surprised that they will limit positive discussion on climate, bad news is good news for those who draw a paycheck from researching AGW and delivering that news. When congressional budget hearings come up, EVERYTHING said by NOAA and NASA employees will be on the table.

 

Nothing exciting has come out of the space agency in years, now look where they are... We don't even have a shuttle anymore.

[skierinvermont]

In 2013 ALL government departments are fighting for survival, including NASA and NOAA. It would make ZERO sense for them to do anything to risk their existence, so don't act surprised that they will limit positive discussion on climate, bad news is good news for those who draw a paycheck from researching AGW and delivering that news. When congressional budget hearings come up, EVERYTHING said by NOAA and NASA employees will be on the table.

 

Nothing exciting has come out of the space agency in years, now look where they are... We don't even have a shuttle anymore.

 

Discussion of the science and facts of AGW has put NOAA and NASA on the chopping block and direct targets of GOP lawmakers. In terms of preserving their funding, they would be better served to shut up about climate. 

 

This also assumes that the agencies function as cohesive units rather than thousands of individuals, and have a centralized messaging plan with the primary purpose of maximizing funding and that all of the individuals within the agency stand to get salary increases or some other material benefit from participation in this messaging plan and assisting the agency maximize its funding. Sort of conspiratorial if you ask me. 

 

More likely, the scientists within the agencies whose job it is to study weather and climate and serve the public interest are trying to do their jobs and inform the public. 

[Jonger]

Jeff Masters, wow... Just wow

 

?? 2013: A Warm and Wet Year in the U.S. ???

 

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2610#commenttop

 

[donsutherland1]

Jeff Masters, wow... Just wow

 

?? 2013: A Warm and Wet Year in the U.S. ???

 

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2610#commenttop

 

He also wrote:

 

The annual U.S. average temperature was 0.3°F above the 20th century average, ranking as the 37th warmest year in the 119-year record. It was the coolest year since 2009.

 

His reference to "warm" probably concerned the ranking. A headline that read "near normal" or "somewhat warmer than normal" might have been more representative of the actual nationwide anomaly.

[Clinch Leatherwood]

IMO I'm convinced a lot of the change is being absorbed by the oceans and not just at the surface but all the way down. Anyone that spends a lot of time on the water from Alaska to California or Florida to Nova Scotia can tell you things are quickly changing on a massive scale in various fisheries. We lack deep to mid ocean temp data.

The shift is happening so quickly I wonder how well we are going to be able to adapt. Primary and secondary food sources are rapidly moving to deeper, colder water.

This is no statement on the cause as I don't care.

[Jonger]

IMO I'm convinced a lot of the change is being absorbed by the oceans and not just at the surface but all the way down. Anyone that spends a lot of time on the water from Alaska to California or Florida to Nova Scotia can tell you things are quickly changing on a massive scale in various fisheries. We lack deep to mid ocean temp data.

The shift is happening so quickly I wonder how well we are going to be able to adapt. Primary and secondary food sources are rapidly moving to deeper, colder water.

This is no statement on the cause as I don't care.

Unless you have the data, preferably raw and adjusted, it's just speculation. The OHC was "rapidly rising" for decades and so were surface land temps, now land temps are flat and OHC charts changed trajectory after a more accurate network went into action. So, either the heat is simply missing or forcing was erroneously over estimated in the past.